From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:16:28 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Might refill_inactive_zone () be too aggressive? Message-ID: <20040417171628.GL743@holomorphy.com> References: <20040417060920.GC29393@flea> <20040417061847.GC743@holomorphy.com> <20040417140811.GA554@flea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040417140811.GA554@flea> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marc Singer Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:18:47PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> A very interesting point there. The tendency to set reclaim_mapped = 1 >> is controlled by /proc/sys/vm/swappiness; setting that to 0 may improve >> your performance or behave closer to how the case you cited where vmscan.c >> never sets reclaim_mapped = 1 improved performance. >> The default value is 60, which begins unmapping mapped memory about >> when 40% of memory is mapped by userspace. On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 07:08:12AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > I did a little more looking at when reclaim_mapped is set to one. In > my case, I don't think that very much memory is mapped. I've got one > program running that has one or two code pages, there may be some > libraries. The system has 28MiB of free RAM. I don't see how I could > be getting more than 20% of RAM mapped. Also, it would be helpful to log periodic snapshots of /proc/meminfo and /proc/vmstat to see what's being fed to the various heuristics. -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org